Tom’s Hardware: We Were Wrong About SSD Power Consumption

As you may recall, a couple of weeks ago, Tom’s Hardware posted a controversial article which claimed that SSDs actually use more power than traditional hard drives. Our own observations contradicted Tom’s original claim so we set out to do our own SSD battery life tests and posted our results, showing a modest improvement in battery life with the two SSDs we tested. Now, Tom’s Hardware has published a new article with an apology. They claim, as many users noted at the time, that their original test method was flawed, because it caused the SSD drives in their roundup to work harder than their HDD counterparts. The results of Tom’s new test still show some SSDs eating more power than HDDs, but other SSDs, most notably the SanDisk SATA 5000 we also tested and an OCZ SATA II, using considerably less power. Of course, Tom’s Hardware continues to use power meters for their tests to and while this yields very interesting results, we plan to continue our real-world testing with battery rundowns. We’re getting in a slew of new drives soon and plan a performance shootout.

Tags: ssd, Storage
AUTHOR BIO
Avram Piltch
Avram Piltch
The official Geeks Geek, as his weekly column is titled, Avram Piltch has guided the editorial and production of Laptopmag.com since 2007. With his technical knowledge and passion for testing, Avram programmed several of LAPTOP's real-world benchmarks, including the LAPTOP Battery Test. He holds a master’s degree in English from NYU.
Avram Piltch on
Twitter Google+
LEAVE A REPLY
Name*
Email* (will not be published)
Website
*Indicates required field
Comments*
Submit Comments

  1. Mike Says:

    After reading all the hype about SSDs I purchased an Intel SSD to install in my Acer Aspire One. I did so without issue and after using it for a while I can say without hesitation it’s a disappointment. Purely from a user standpoint I don’t find it any fster than my old 5400rpm HDD and my Acer doesn’t last any longer on the battery than it did before the install. I don’t see any advantage to paying 3 to 4 times the price except that you no longer have to defrag the SSD and it is less prone to movement damage if dropped etc. I’d simply stick to a 7200rpm HDD for the price. I think we’ve all been sold a “bill of goods” on how great SSD’s are…. BS.

  2. Andreas Says:

    I had lenovo x300 with 64gb ssd and windows xp booted in 15 seconds. Beat that if you can.

    For your knowledge my Hp 2510 with 1.8inch disk took 45seconds. (1.8inch are slower)

    So it depends what ssd you buy there are good ones as well as crappy ones.

  3. Andreas Says:

    Also if you have a crappy atom computer , you have more likely a cpu bottleneck.

    Try the disk in a core 2 duo and you will notice some major difference.

FIND A REVIEW
Laptops
All Product Types Accessories Cars Digital Camcorders Digital Cameras eReaders GPS Laptops MP3 & Video Players Projectors Smartphones Software Storage Tablets / MIDs VoIP Wi-Fi
All Subcategories
All Subcategories All-Purpose Budget Business Desktop Replacement Gaming Multimedia Netbook Nettop Rugged Student Tablet PCs Ultraportable
Brand
Acer Alienware Apple Archos ASUS Averatec BenQ CTL Corp. Dell Digital Storm eMachines Emtec Everex Fujitsu GammaTech Gateway General Dynamics Getac Gigabyte Hercules HP HTC iBuyPower Intel Lenovo MSI Nokia Nvidia OCZ OLPC OQO Origin Panasonic Sager Samsung Sony Sylvania Systemax TabletKiosk Toshiba Verizon Viewsonic Viliv VooDoo Workhorse PC ZT Systems
Minimum Rating
Any Rating Editor's Choice 4.5 Stars 4.0 Stars 3.5 Stars 3.0 Stars
Screen Size
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 4 5 6 7 8 9
Resolution
1024x576 1024x600 1024x768 1200X800 1280 x 720 1280x1024 1280x768 1280x800 1366x678 1366x768 1440x1050 1440x900 1600x768 1600x900 1680x1050 1680x945 1920x1080 1920x1200 800x400 800x480
Weight Range
10.1 - 12.0 pounds 12.1 - 14.0 pounds 14.1 - 16.0 pounds 2 lbs 2 pounds and under 2+ lbs 2.1 - 4.0 pounds 4.1 - 6.0 pounds 6.1 - 8.0 pounds 8.1 - 10.0 pounds Over 16 pounds Under 2 pounds
more options
SUBSCRIBE